If we are all descended from Noah ...

Just another example of god's plan for human fallibility as a result of the Fall of Man. Or words to that effect...

Well, if the biblical errors thread is all that's keeping you from addressing the science of evolution beyond the occasional "it ain't so" comment, I too hope it dies a quick and merciful death so we can get back to the point of the e/c debate.I would be absolutely tickled to death to discuss the relative scientific merits of your creationist position vs mainstream science whenever you feel up to presenting specific arguments. I personally find the biblical apologetics unutterably boring, but I know many people enjoy them (John being a notable example).Consider this an invitation whenever you get around to it...

quote:

---

Quetzal, please tell me then why you were attracted to a forum labelled "If we are all descended from Noah ..."? It is obviously a thread concerning Bible apologetics, yet you find the subject "unutterably boring", inexplicably present and commenting.

---

Although somewhat irrelevant, I'll satisfy your curiosity. This thread had at one point an interesting argument concerning population genetic bottlenecks in which I participated. That issue has apparently been dropped. However, "hope oft springs eternal", hence my continuing to read the thread. In addition, you have made several interesting assertions, but rather than derail the thread any further, I forbore to comment. Again, I'm content to wait until you are prepared to discuss the scientific side of the equation.

quote:

---

Thanks for the invite. Ya'll sho sound hospitable enough. I might just kick mah shoes off and sit a spell.

---

I doubt you will find me all that hospitable. Civil, perhaps - that very much depends on you. It's interesting that we are on opposite sides on so many levels - even your current profession. To someone who spent a great deal of time working on ecology, conservation biology, environmental baseline and land-use studies, as well as other issues relating to halting the destruction of, or developing rational use patterns in, rapidly vanishing Central American forests, the idea of a timber broker is unlikely to engender joy.It promises to be a very interesting discussion.

Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America.It is interesting, however, that he immediately lumped our work in with the radical environmentalist idiots in the US with his/her ignorant cracks about "so-called ecologists" etc. Nothing like jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Must have hit a sore spot. It's even more funny when I think how many times my group opposed the same idiots...I even got death threats from one group (out of Vermont, IIRC) once.OTOH, I've heard the exact same argument from timber poachers and so-called "factors" in Nicaragua who managed to convince ignorant campesinos that it was okay to clear cut primary forest. After all, God put those useless trees there just for humans to exploit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Quetzal: "Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America."

​

WS: I eliminated that 'Central America' as the subject since a 'timber buyer' in Arkansas was castigated, yet Quetzal admits the practice of forestry in central USA is "rather good". I think you have to admit also there is discontinuity in the last two posts, since there is no lasting success for forestry without a market for wood products which funds forestry practice, requiring buyers who use it or sell it to another user. Since the problem of clearcutting/ deforestation (net loss) is dramatically exemplified in Central America, why make the comments linking my business to something dreaded? I'm part of the success story in the USA, directly responsible for net gain and improvement of over 230 thousand of acres of American forest.

---

What a very odd post. I never castigated "timber buyer in Arkansas" as a specific example of odious practice. I also never mentioned that timber buying was one of the practices I was in favor of. I did, however, mention contacts with timber factors and "buyers" in Central America who were less than scrupulous about the tactics they used to obtain wood. Interesting that you feel there is a direct parallel. Guilty conscience?As to my comment concerning forestry management, I obviously was unclear: "fairly good" in my post was a qualifier referring to US Government Forest Service practices for conservation and land management, some of which we were able to adopt and use. It had nothing to do with private sector brokers. You really should work on your reading comprehension, especially if you expect to discuss the details of the relative scientific merits of evolutionary biology and creationism at some point.Are you finished derailing this thread, now?